memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Memory Alpha:Category suggestions
Provisional categories Organizations I propose the creation of a supercategory "Organizations" -- this would basically be any group, including governments, corporations, militaries, teams, etc. Form *Supercategory: Category:Organizations -- this category contains all organizations articles in a list **Subcategories can be added at will from the following: ***Category:Governments ***Category:Corporations ***Category:Agencies -- covering both militaries, and governmental sub-agencies ****Category:Military units -- proposed at Memory Alpha:Category suggestions ***additional categories for other groups as they become identified -- i'm not sure if we have enough articles relevant for a Category:Music groups or Category:Sports teams, *** Category:Religions might be a possibility The question about this suggestion is -- should all these articles still be contained in the master category, or should we leave the supercategory containing only articles about "miscellaneous groups" that don't fall into any of the subcategories -- or would it even be preferable to create additional subcategory Category:Miscellaneous groups. Additionally, subcategories of major groups can and will be created upon suggestion and vote here -- once Category:Agencies has been approved, Category:Starfleet, Category:Tal Shiar, etcetera can be contained in it. :I don't recommend putting any articles in Category:Starfleet or any other organization at this level, however, because an additional tree structure must be discussed -- to prevent double listing articles that fall under both '''UFP' and Starfleet.'' There are a lot of organizations that may be deserving of a category heading -- this level will form a major portion of our tree structure if it is approved. Once approved, it will be easy to create multiple categories by writing one sample category makeup -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 21:49, 26 Mar 2005 (EST) :(I'm not sure where this came from, but it didn't belong with the paragraph prevously attached with it, so I am putting it here.) --Alan del Beccio 06:50, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) *Subcategories based on military or service organizations, agencies, (Category:Organizations; Category:Agencies; etc), will use the form "NAME personnel". Former members who move on to other exploits may be double categorized. Members of sub-agencies or units that are able to be listed like that should also be categorized like that. -- for example, Spock is both in Starfleet personnel, and USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel. *Subcategories based on species should take the form of their list article (people) -- the species name in plural (Category:Vulcans, humans, etc). Hybrids should be double categorized. *Subcategories based on Category:Governments or Category:Regions could take the form NAME citizens or NAME residents, i'm open for suggestions on this one if anyone has a better idea for final terminology. Earth Category:Earth. with list subcategory Category:Earth cities. The cities category would cover the numerous Earth cities mentioned, and the broader Earth category would cover other aspects of the planet -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 23:22, 8 Mar 2005 (GMT) * would additional subcategory Category:Earth regions be prefereable for all of our nation, state and continent/island articles? * further subcategories could be applied for Category:Earth lifeforms. * would this be an opening for our first Category:People species category - a Category:Humans listing? :Does anyone have any further input whether or not i should create these categories? -- Captain Mike K. Bartel 10:19, 13 Mar 2005 (GMT) * Perhaps just a category of cities, to encompass both earth and alien cities, much like Category:Starships encompasses all starships Starfleet, and alien. Additionally, a category of regions to cover all states, counties, provinces, nations, regions, islands, etc. and -- a category of landforms for all mountains, continents, and the such...and if possible think of a broader term to include rivers lakes and oceans. --Alan del Beccio 06:26, 20 Aug 2005 (UTC) Earth sub-categories Its getting full in Category:Earth -- in my eyes, sub possibilities are locations (locales, cities, states, provinces, regions, topography), arts (media, entertainment (("arts & entertainment"?))), organizations, (governments, nations), flora, fauna, etc. Anyone hav input on going forward? -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 08:45, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) * As long as it works well as a subcategory with the corresponding categories that cover 'locations (locales, cities, states, provinces, regions, topography), arts (media, entertainment (("arts & entertainment"?))), organizations, (governments, nations), flora, fauna, etc.' -- then I'm for it. --Alan del Beccio 15:47, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) I think the following would be the easiest to start with: ** Category:Earth art - sub of Category:art; ** Category:Earth literature - sub of Category:literature; ** Category:Earth music - sub of Category:music; ** Category:Earth cities - sub of Category:cities; ** Category:Earth animals - sub of Category:animals; ** Category:Earth plants - sub of Category:plants. *** --Alan del Beccio 20:29, 21 Sep 2005 (UTC) :*Mike's right, it is getting full in there and subs are needed. The way Alan layed them out look good to me, and probably would be the easiest way to go right now. So, in effect, I support. So, like, make it so, and stuff. :P --From Andoria with Love 02:37, 22 Sep 2005 (UTC) Earth lifeforms ** I just noticed there is not enough enough plants and animals to warrant separate categories: Category:Earth animals and Category:Earth plants, so I suggest a simplier Category:Earth plants and animals (animals and plants?) --Alan del Beccio 05:47, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) ***For "Earth Animals and Plants", I think Animals may deserve their own cat., but not plants. Maybe something could be thought up in the future, something that doesn't sound so odd under either, ie: "Deer" being listed under "Plants and Animals". - AJHalliwell 06:16, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) ****Maybe Category:Earth lifeforms, like what is mentioned above would be the best afterall. Alan del Beccio 09:38, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC) *****'Support' for this. Could also be a subcategory of a Category:Lifeforms (or do we already have something like that under another name? If so, try to find common nomenclature.) -- Cid Highwind 20:56, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) Earth foods and Earth beverages * I also suggest Category:Earth foods and Category:Earth beverages as sub of Category:Foods and Category:Beverages. Alan del Beccio 09:38, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** Or Category:Human foods and Category:Human beverages.--Alan del Beccio 20:50, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) ***Sticking with the theme of having "Earth something" categories, I'd support the first two suggestions - again, as subcategories of both "Earth" and "Foods/Beverages". -- Cid Highwind 20:58, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) Earth transportation *What about Category:Earth transportation for roads, subways, etc.? - Adm. Enzo Aquarius 02:09, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) Time travel Category:Time travel : This came to me after I saw that Future Guy was categorized as "nonhuman" because, according to FuturamaGuy, "we may not know what he was, but he has to be categorized as something, and this is the most generic 'people' category we have". He's right, so I figured a category for time travelers and their ships and any other aspect of time travel. What do ya think? --From Andoria with Love 04:55, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Support: Although, I think that Category:Time Travel should contain ships and methods of Time Travel, and maybe a couple other related things to, and there should be a subcategory at Category:Time Travelers to cover all of the people known to have travelled through time (Kirk, Picard, Kyle, Sisko, Daniels, could get pretty big with the Voyager cast at least).--Tim Thomason 07:29, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) Hmm... I was thinking more along the lines of those who are actually in the business of time traveling, or those who intentionally traveled from a certain era to visit the era of our regular heroes. Doing a category that includes everyone who has traveled time will just get way to rediculous: you have the entire crew of both Kirk and Picard (i.e. "Tomorrow is Yesterday", Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, "Time's Arrow", Star Trek: First Contact), the entire crew of Voyager (i.e. "Year of Hell", "Future's End"), the entire Deep Space 9 crew ("Trials and Tribble-ations"), and the entire crew of the NX-01 (i.e. "E²", "Storm Front"). We need to find someway to do this that excludes the main characters of the shows, or else it will get way out of hand. Any suggestions? --From Andoria with Love 09:07, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Comment: You're right, that would be infeasible (although the entire ''Enterprise''-D crew didn't make the trip in "Time's Arrow," and only the ''Defiant'' made the trip in "Trials and Tribble-ations"). I was thinking something like "Leslie and Kyle were seen in 'Tomorrow is Yesterday,' therefore they traveled through time," but then someone could prove that "Hansen was on the trip for four years, therefore he was on the ship in 'Tomorrow is Yesterday.'" That would mean there could be well over 200-some names under a category, and I do see a problem with that. Perhaps we could limit it to: :#Senior Staff of the Starship's that traveled through time, since there the only ones who might get in "trouble." :#Those who actually left the ship during the various time travel misadventures and interacted with the populace and whatnot. :As long as we are clear on who's allowed in the summary of the category it shouldn't be a problem.--Tim Thomason 12:37, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC) I'm still not sure I like the idea of including any of the regular characters from any of the series. There's gotta be some way to just include those time travelers which the regulars encountered because the time travelers themselves traveled to that time (i.e. Berlinghoff Rasmussen traveling to the 24th century, Daniels traveling to the 22nd century). Obviously, I didn't think this all the way through when I suggested the category. :P --From Andoria with Love 17:31, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) :Perhaps then, as you originally suggested, a simple Category:Time travel would be enough, just for simply the ways of traveling through time (Orb of Time, Light speed breakaway factor) and prolific Time travelers whose business was to travel through time, either to fight wars or steal trinkets, not just on some misadventure when a guy's transporter got stuck in an ion storm. This would phase out all of the main characters and include the guys that you want to include (Future Guy, Rasmussen, Daniels, Braxton, Ducane). We can worry about the logistics of a Time travelers category some other time.--Tim Thomason 15:46, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) That works for me. Now all we gotta do is get some more support for it, and it'll be all set. :) --From Andoria with Love 04:51, 16 Nov 2005 (UTC) Hmm... is this still here? Wow, I wish we could get some more discussion on this. --From Andoria with Love 20:41, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::I'm fine with a Category:Time travel for any article related to time travel (theories, timeships, other necessary objects, ...), excluding time travelling people. These could be categorized using a list category Category:Time travellers (which should be a subcategory of time travel). The category page should then in some way make note of the fact that all "main characters" are excluded and perhaps link to the various "lists of personnel" of the relevant ships, because those would just clutter up the list. -- Cid Highwind 21:33, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC) Good enough for me. Let's do this! --From Andoria with Love 21:18, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) This might be the wrong place to ask, but why is there no own article about time travel? The German one is quite long and still marked incomplete, so there's enough content to create it. --Memory 21:43, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) Suggested categories Starfleet I'd like to add a category for Starfleet subdivisions like Unit XY-75847. Perhaps Category:Starfleet, but that might have the tendency to overlap with too many other categories. Category:Military units might work too. Any other suggestions? -- Harry 15:29, 31 Jan 2005 (CET) :I definitely prefer the second suggestion - "Starfleet" would be too broad as a category title, and the second one would allow us to also list units and groups of other powers (if those exist). I don't have any suggestions regarding the exact title, but it should cover, for example, Star Fleet Battle Group Omega and the Starfleet Fleets. -- Cid Highwind 11:25, 21 Feb 2005 (GMT) :On the tree suggestion page, I started the Category:Organizations -- it contains Category:Governments and Category:Agencies -- the latter should contain Category:Starfleet if and when it is created. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * It would be a good place to add subcategories Category:Starfleet personnel, and that is with me not knowing if they are subcategorized anywhere else other than "Lists". --Alan del Beccio 06:50, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) *I believe it should either be Category:Military units or something like Category:Fleets. In any case, I support the idea. --From Andoria with Love 12:12, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) Specific Military Personnel Similar to the various personnel categories, I'd like to offer these suggestions: * Category:Bajoran Militia personnel, based off of the page Bajoran Militia personnel, subcategory of Category:Bajorans (and I guess Category:Ferengi). * Category:Klingon Defense Force personnel, based off of the page Klingon Defense Force personnel, subcategory of Category:Klingons. * Category:Romulan military personnel, would be based off of a Romulan military personnel page, subcategory of Category:Romulans. * Category:Central Command personnel, would be based off of a Central Command personnel page, subcategory of Category:Cardassians. * Category:Ferengi military personnel, would be based off of a Ferengi military personnel page, subcategory of Category:Ferengi. * Category:Vulcan High Command personnel/Category:Vulcan military personnel, would be based off of a page listing Vulcan military personnel, subcategory of Category:Vulcans. * Category:MACO personnel, based off of the page MACO personnel. * Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) personnel, based off of the page USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) personnel, subcategory of Category:Starfleet personnel. * Category:Val Jean personnel, based off of the page Val Jean personnel, subcategory of Category:Maquis personnel. * Category:USS Equinox personnel, based off of the page USS Equinox personnel, subcategory of Category:Starfleet personnel. * Category:Starfleet Headquarters personnel/Category:Starfleet Command personnel, based off of the page Starfleet Headquarters personnel, subcategory of Category:Starfleet personnel. * Category:Starfleet Academy personnel, based off of the page Starfleet Academy personnel, subcategory of Category:Starfleet personnel. It should be included for militaries with at least 10 personnel, and probably a good number of separate civilians to make weeding out different from duplication.--Tim Thomason 01:50, 14 Sep 2005 (UTC) (updated Tim Thomason 12:48, 28 Sep 2005 (UTC)) * For the moment, I'm definately for Category:Klingon Defense Force personnel and suggest perhaps changing Category:Cardassian Orders personnel to something more like Category:Central Command personnel (a la Category:Starfleet personnel). --Alan del Beccio 04:54, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC) * I agree and support the ones Gvsualan mentioned above (though I personally think a simpler and more generic Category:Cardassian military personnel sounds more appropriate). I also strongly support Category:Bajoran Militia personnel andCategory:Romulan military personnel. I'll offer mild support for the Category:Ferengi military personnel, Category:Vulcan High Command personnel/Category:Vulcan military personnel, and Category:MACO personnel. I'll have to see how many Enterprise-A personnel were actually mentioned before I take a side on Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A) personnel. :I think I might have to oppose Category:Val Jean personnel since it's a bit redundant with both the Voyager and Maquis personnel categories and also Category:USS Equinox personnel since I don't really think there's people enough to warrant one. I also oppose Category:Starfleet Command personnel (a bit too vague, I think). I also oppose Category:Starfleet Academy personnel because either this only includes instructors, teachers, etc., in which case there's probably too few, or it also includes cadets, in which case EVERY OFFCER, presumably having once been a cadet, should theoretically be included, making it far too broad.--T smitts 22:56, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) :: Actually when I made this list of personnel pages, I searched through all the pages with "personnel" and only included those with over 10 members. I understand the redundancy of Category:Val Jean personnel and the vagueness of Category:Starfleet Command personnel. Starfleet Academy personnel would be based on the list here, and contains 24 named people (more than Category:Andorians and Category:Bolians, and there has always been a tendency to mention "Professor Smith taught me this well..."). Also USS Equinox personnel has 13 named people, which seems alright to me as a nice, small category in which the members aren't categorized elsewhere.--Tim Thomason 03:17, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) Novelists Since Category:Writers covers script writers, Category:Authors covers "Trek universe" writers and we still yet have writers of novels and related books uncategorized, Category:Novelists seems to be the last remaining tag to give these individuals. I figured I would post this, as I noticed someone had categorized a novelist for a Trek novel in the Authors category along with a bunch of Trek universe authors. --Alan del Beccio 08:35, 16 Sep 2005 (UTC) :Support, although we might want to think again about giving those "meta" categories a common prefix, just like we're giving all "maintenance" categories the prefix "Memory Alpha". "Star Trek" was suggested when we had this discussion before. This would free up the "Novelists" category for an eventual later use to categorize in-universe characters that wrote novels. It would also avoid the rather artificial distinction between "Writers" and "Authors". -- Cid Highwind 22:02, 5 Oct 2005 (UTC) * So something like: Category:Star Trek writers, Category:Star Trek authors and (for in-universe) Category:Literary figures? --Alan del Beccio 22:19, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) Wars/Conflicts Not necessarily with that name but a category for various conflicts such as the Klingon Civil War, the Borg-Species 8472 War, the Temporal Cold War, and of course, the Dominion War. --T smitts 15:20, 6 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. I was just thinking a couple of days ago that MA should have something like this, considering all the wars in Trek. It could contain major wars, various battles (like all the battles of the Dominion War) and even smaller conflicts, like Iden's Rebellion. I suggest Category:Conflicts. Good idea. -[[User:Platypus222|'Platypus Man']] | ''Talk'' 20:19, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) *'Support'. I, too, also think it's a great idea and also suggest Category:Conflicts. Don't forget the Babel Crisis and the Battle of Wolf 359! :P --From Andoria with Love 21:05, 7 Oct 2005 (UTC) **Actually I'd meant it more as a category for wars but I suppose one could expand it to include individual battles and call it "conflicts" *'Mild Support' For name "Cat: Conflicts", but I'd like to remind people that certain conflicts ("Battle of the Bassen rift") no matter how nicely written, are not named correctly, and their requirement is still being discussed on Talk:Military conflicts. But actually, that list would be a good starting point for this. Well, i'd like it to be discussed, but not many others are interested. - AJHalliwell 02:33, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) Political regions I was thinking something like Category:Political regions for all political regions, including nations, states, provinces and districts (anything that doesn't fall under Category:Cities or Category:Regions) that can further be subcategorized into those specifically referenced on Earth. --Alan del Beccio 05:36, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Support, although I'm not sure if "political regions" is really the best name for it. Then again, I can't think of anything better, so maybe it is the best name for it. :-P --From Andoria with Love 19:36, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Support --FuturamaGuy 22:15, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) Borg Category:Borg for those listed on the list of Borg. --Alan del Beccio 17:07, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) :I agree with the category, but its name ("Borg") might better be used for a category for everything of "Borg origin". We normally use plural for list categories, which isn't possible here. Any other suggestions? -- Cid Highwind 18:35, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) * The name agrees, in terms of naming, with the already existing singular category names such as Category:Trill, Category:Ferengi and Category:Jem'Hadar. --Alan del Beccio 19:04, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Strong Support. The name is sound, as is the category. And it's about darn time our Borg pals got a little recognition around here, too. :-P Resistance is, like, futile, and stuff. --From Andoria with Love 19:36, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Support, but I'd like to see maybe "Borg" for everything regarding the Borg, and then "Cat: Borg drones" for the actual borg people. - AJHalliwell 20:35, 8 Oct 2005 (UTC) * Strong support. Ben Sisqo 00:27, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC) Technologies I suggest a list of each device/technology accompanied by its planet/civilization of origin (unless developed simultaneously by different planets, which would include the planets developing it).--Mike Nobody 04:09, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC) :This would be a list article, not a category (categories are alphabetical lists without further comments by design). Oppose as a category, but you might still want to create a "standard" article... -- Cid Highwind 13:20, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) Military personnel Category:Military personnel which would contain all non-Starfleet personnel who were in their respective governments military (like most Romulans and Klingons). Starfleet personnel and maybe the Guls categories could be sub-categories and if and when other types of personnel are made into categories (as suggested above), they can be separated and made sub-categories.--Tim Thomason 08:21, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC) * I think this is a better start than the long winded "Specific Military Personnel" selection listed above. --FuturamaGuy 22:17, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** Comment: I can't believe someone thought that the whole "Specific Military Personnel" was a good idea.--Tim Thomason 07:29, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Support. Sounds good. Make it so. --From Andoria with Love 05:08, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC) Occupations * In reviewing many of the terms categorized under Category:Titles, I've noticed that many of those listed are (almost) strictly occupations, rather than mere titles. Examples of this include: Archaeology and anthropology officer, astronaut, bartender, Captain's personal guard, Comfort woman, etc -- versus more traditional (and true) titles, such as King, Ambassador, High Commissioner and the like. --Alan del Beccio 08:39, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) *'Comment': Under titles I see (or saw) three different types: ##'Military ranks', like Colonel or Lieutenant, now a category thanks to some courageous individuals. ##'Titles', real titles given to someones name, like Administrator, Governor or Jal. ##'Positions', not really given to your name but an "occupation" you occupy with some authority (like Arbiter of Succession, Records officer, Science officer, Third officer, Captain's personal guard) ##'Occupations', like you suggest which includes bartender or barkeep or maybe Chef (although that is also a title) or even astronaut. * I'm not really suggesting these sub-categories, I'm just saying that "occupations" doesn't really cover it either.--Tim Thomason 15:46, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC) ** Well I'm out of here again for a few days, so I'm not sure what we can do with this, as you have a point about the divisions of this--and at the same time, I really don't think it is appropriate, as it is currently, to have bartender and comfort woman categorized as "titles"-- in fact, I would almost rather see them not categorized at all. I suggest we browse through wikipedia's category structure for ideas. A significantly toned down version of what might be found in might be a good start. --Alan del Beccio 00:35, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC) Slang and Nicknames * There seems to be enough to warrant two new categories. --Alan del Beccio 08:15, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) * Support. You know, just curious, have I ever opposed a category yet? Just wondering... :P --From Andoria with Love 08:20, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC) From Ten Forward I've got a category suggestion, I know there's a place for such things, but I forget where it is, feel free to move this. I'd like to see Species Unknown or something with the same meaning in order to compile the characters whose species are unknown, rather then creating pages for each one. I'm refering to the list that is starting to form under By Individual at Unnamed humanoids. Jaf 23:57, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC) Kazon I created this last night when I was half asleep and somehow remembered to add the provisional notice without even mentioning it here. However, I doubt people will argue with its existence? The only thing that might be contentious is whether to include only Kazon people or everything related to the Kazon -- given their (relatively) brief tenure, I'd say the latter. --Vedek Dukat Talk | Duty Roster 18:41, 26 Nov 2005 (UTC) :This category should be for everything of Kazon origin -- probably a decent quantity of articles from their two year tenure as characters. A people list would be Category:Kazons i believe, if thats the proper plural, but how many Kazon did we really end up seeing -- 10-20? if its more than 15 or so named individuals this would make a decent subcategory. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:47, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) * I oppose this being about "everything of Kazon origin". Also, we have numerous categories that are not plural (ending with "s" -- as "the Kazon" is plural) for people, such as Category:Ferengi and Category:Jem'Hadar, which are not about "everything of" those respective species. --Alan del Beccio 20:26, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC) Category:TOS stunt performers, etc Stuntmen are being categorized as "Category:TOS performers" -- is this appropriate? If others don't think so, this category could be created to rectify this. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 12:37, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) sorting stubs Category:Memory Alpha production stubs There has been a suggestion that we sort the articles in Category:Memory Alpha stubs into subcategories, such as Category:Memory Alpha production stubs, etc, .. Please register support, opposition or comments for creating that subcategory here. * Support -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk * Oppose - see below. -- Cid Highwind 13:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Comment'. Is this totally necessary? It's not like Wikipedia where obscure subjects and topics need someone who understands the content or whatever, and we also don't have an unlimited number of potential articles as they do. Basically, it seems to me that like Cid said if someone wants to fix them then fix them instead of worrying about how they're organized. Ben Sisqo 00:26, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC) Memory Alpha unsorted stubs I have an additional suggestion (which is why i reverted a preemptive edit that would have also removed all "production stubs" from the main stub list -- perhaps we should use the individual stub templates to double categorize all the stub articles -- and create the additional subcategory Memory Alpha unsorted stubs -- this way we can sort them as they accumulate, as well as having a master list. Cases like this are why we have the suggestion page -- that category was enacted already and people had started to categorize articles into it, even though through discussion my changes could have been added. Please discuss a category first, as it is tedious, and resource consuming to have to go back and recategorize dozens or hundreds of articles. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk *'Support' -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk *'Oppose'. (What happened here? I added a comment here yesterday and am sure that it went through, but now it is missing again without any sign of it in the history? Anyway... I strongly oppose any subcategorization of stubs. First, an article should only very temporarily have "stub status". Any administrative overhead used to collect, categorize and recategorize all the different stub types might better be used to "de-stub" some of them. Second, I'm not sure if it would help anyone. Right now, we have about 800 stub articles. If someone is interested in removing those right now, why doesn't he start the work? If he's not interested, would subcategorization help in any way? Third, I fear that having a detailed subcategorization scheme for stubs would only help making them a "normal" feature of MA instead of the "necessary evil" they are. -- Cid Highwind 13:10, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC) Federation Members Category:Federation Members Self-explanatory, though I really can't decide if this should apply to species, planets, or both.--T smitts 17:26, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) * Support: First of all, I would change the name to Category:Federation members, to conform to our capitalization standards. Then I would use the list at Federation members (a list of Planets) and use the Founding, Council, Other known, and Probable members sections of that page (about 33 member planets, from Aaamazzara to Zaran II). I wouldn't use anything else from that page, but we might have to categorize some species (Zaldans, Medusans, Saurians, Napeans) whose planet is unknown, or we could make a bunch of "Zaldan Homeworld" etc. pages and categorize them as Federation members.--Tim Thomason 00:08, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC) *'Oppose', for the moment: The question whether this applies to species, planets or both is one that we already discussed about two years ago, probably on the talk page of the "Federation members" page - and although my opinion of this has changed a little since then, I still don't think there's a definite answer either way. If we can't even decide (based on canon info) if we should include one or the other, we probably shouldn't start a category. And if we do anyway, we should only include definite members, not the proabble ones. -- Cid Highwind 21:09, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) Chemical Compounds There are quite a number of chemical compounds (including drugs), both real and fictional, mentioned in various episodes. I think a Category:Chemical compounds might be helpful to organize these, many of which are not currently categorized at all. Renegade54 22:04, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC) Medical Procedures I'd like to suggest a Category:Medical procedures category. There are categories for essentially everything else under the "Medicine" section except for the procedures. Just makes sense to me! --Bgtribble 10:10, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC) Category:Memory Alpha images (11-7-05) This is a supercategory suggestion -- the top level for a category tree to sort images. I suggest using a basic "sort by series" approach -- identify each image as the production it came from -- with the naming convention Category:XXX images should it be "TOS images" or "TOS Season 1 images" (as the entire series would probably encompass a few hundred images, and all images should be cited with a season or episode reference) *Category:TOS images (supercategory, no articles) ** Category:TOS Season 1 images, TOS s2, etc. * Etc.. for each series TNG, DS9, ... *Category:Novels covers; Comics, etc ("covers" because we generally don't reproduce anything besides a cover of a publication so as to avoid an infringement). Additionally, any part of our existing category tree is open to having an "XXX images" category associated with it (and contained within it), once we discuss the details for how to classify the images (how much of a planet need be shown or described in an image to classify it into Category:Planet images, the sort key used, etc... -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 18:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC) Suggestions As discussed on Ten Forward, I think image categories will be very useful in cataloguing what we currently have and also preventing the duplication of images. In addition to Captainmike's suggestions regarding season, series, novels, etc. I also recommend categories for characters, which could be structured something like this: *Category:Starfleet personnel images **Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) personnel images ***Category:Jean-Luc Picard images (create only for characters which have a large number of images) For ships, maybe something like this: *Category:Federation ship images **Category:Galaxy class images (can include exteriors and interiors) ***Category:USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D) images (again, only for ships which have a large number of images) Or for planets: *Category:Planet images **Category:Alpha and Beta Quadrant planet images ***Category:Earth images Clearly, many other areas can be categorized in such a fashion... perhaps a notice can be added to the upload page asking archivists to search and check image categories before uploading a new file. I think this will go a long way towards helping us make better use of pics. -- SmokeDetector47 // ''talk'' 19:36, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :I think image categories only make sense to catalogue images for possible reuse. Memory Alpha is not an image gallery, so our categorization doesn't need to behave like a photo album. Instead, we can concentrate on optimizing this category structure for editors. I don't know if something like SERIES images or STARSHIP personnel images makes sense in that case. For character images, for example, I would suggest to start with something like: :*'People' :**'Single' :***'Headshot' :**'Groups' :Other "top categories" could be: :*'Location' (with possible subcategories "Indoor", "Outdoor" or more specific "Ten Forward" etc.) :*'Scene' (possible subcategories: "Fight", "Discussion", "Leisure" etc.) :*'Object' (with possible subcategories "Starships", "Planets", "Weapons", even "People" could be a subcategory of this) :-- Cid Highwind 18:44, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC) :I suggest to create the suggested Category:Memory Alpha images now and use a bot to add that link to all images we have. We can then continue the discussion about useful subcategories. -- Cid Highwind 17:01, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::The sub categories we have in MA/de are "book covers", "computer games", "indoor", "starships", "starbases", "stellar objects", "persons" (though that might be subdivided in Meta-Trek) of course I would offer Morn's help, just tell me. -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 17:22, 7 Aug 2005 (UTC) ::There's now also "place" I've noticed. These categories can be very useful if your're searching for images for illustration, I was satisfied that I could use it "for the uniform". --Memory 11:18, 11 Aug 2005 (UTC) *'Archived' --Alan del Beccio 08:11, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC) Revived I think the MA/de categries are a good example of where to go with this -- we might want to address whether or not to name this with a standard (Category:XX images, Category:Images of XX, etc.) -- for example, all categories solely for images could get contained in super category Category:Memory Alpha image categories I support creation of Category:Memory Alpha image categories, Category:Images of book covers and propose discussion of naming requirements for more (i don't feel Memory Alpha:Images of computer games is logically named, for example, so we'd need to work on a better translation -- or it might make more sense to use Memory Alpha:Book cover images and Memory Alpha:Video game images. Please discuss and suggest. Barring any other objections, I also think super-super-category Category:Memory Alpha images could be added to all images as Cid suggested. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:55, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC) :As these are maintenance categories I still maintain that all future subcategories for images should be prefixed with "Memory Alpha" (though without a ":" after that, we don't use that in other cases). I also think we don't need another category acting as a supercategory to these - the already created Category:Memory Alpha images should suffice. Finally, let me clarify my earlier suggestion. I don't think we should have all images categorized as Memory Alpha images indefinitely - what I meant was to categorize them there first, then move them to more appropriate categories as we create them. I think a double categorization as an "image" and as an "XYZ image" doesn't make sense, and would oppose that suggestion. :Regarding the specific suggestions, a category for cover images seems to be uncontroversial, so let's start with that. I'd suggest Category:Memory Alpha cover images (leaving out "book") for all images of "covers". -- Cid Highwind 19:56, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) :Addition: I just checked MA/de, and they are using qualified names for their subcategories, which seems to be a good idea. For covers, this would mean Category:Memory Alpha images (covers) or (book covers). -- Cid Highwind 21:14, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC) ::Well, I still support the image category, however it might be necessary to further subdivide those images, like cover images of reference books, tng novels, tos novels etc... main reason for this is the extensive server load because up to 200 images are displayed on one page. -- Kobi - [[ :Kobi|( )]] 21:55, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) :That's true - if possible, we should subcategorize and then only use those subcategories. Can we get this started for only cover images to see where that brings us? I propose the following subcategorization and will implement it if there are no further objections: :*Category:Memory Alpha images main category for images :**Category:Memory Alpha images (covers) subcategory for "covers". Only images that do not fall into one of the subcategories will be put here :***Category:Memory Alpha images (novel covers) as above. Crossover novels or those not about one of the series' will be put here :****Category:Memory Alpha images (ENT novel covers) as above :****Category:Memory Alpha images (TOS novel covers) as above :****Category:Memory Alpha images (TNG novel covers) as above :****Category:Memory Alpha images (DS9 novel covers) as above :****Category:Memory Alpha images (VOY novel covers) as above :***Category:Memory Alpha images (reference book covers) as above :***Category:Memory Alpha images (DVD and VHS covers) as above :***Category:Memory Alpha images (video game covers) as above : -- Cid Highwind 12:22, 6 Jan 2006 (UTC) :::I support the above, however, is Category:Memory Alpha images (DVD/VHS covers) a legit to use? I remember getting some flack for creating Em/3/Green. (I am, of course, referring to the use of / <--those.) --Alan del Beccio 20:59, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) :You're correct. I just tried to avoid a "&" and forgot about that. I changed it to "and" instead, but is there perhaps a more generic term instead of "DVD and VHS", just in case we want to add something like laserdics, soundtracks etc. later? -- Cid Highwind 21:36, 8 Jan 2006 (UTC) Armed conflicts I'd like to suggest the creation of Category:Armed conflicts, under which we would place all referenced wars, battles, conflicts, etc. There are quite a few pages of this type already created on MA, and, as far as I can see, none of them are categorized. I think this would make a good jumping-off point for someone looking for information on a specific conflict without knowing the actual name of the conflict. Renegade54 23:17, 2 Jan 2006 (UTC) :Here's a demo of what Category:Armed conflicts would look like if created. Let me know what you all think. Renegade54 17:10, 5 Jan 2006 (UTC) New PNA category (images without disclaimer) I'd like to create a new PNA category listing all images that do not use any of the existing templates as a copyright disclaimer (just one recent example: Image:VOYDVDRGN1SSN7.jpg). A bot could easily scan through all image description pages and add that PNA message/category link. All that is necessary is a proper name, and I suggest Category:Memory Alpha images without copyright disclaimer. -- Cid Highwind 20:45, 3 Jan 2006 (UTC) See Template:Pna-imagenodisclaimer and its "What links here" listing to see image files that do not have a proper copyright disclaimer in form of one of the standard templates. -- Cid Highwind 17:10, 4 Jan 2006 (UTC)